- From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 18:20:25 -0800
- To: love26@gorge.net (William Loughborough), Anne Pemberton <apembert@crosslink.net>, Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
William, I don't understand your objection here. Are you saying that
"next" on arrows is unnecessary, required, or what? You seem to be
disagreeing strongly with Anne's assertion that "the use of arrows
without a word has to be taught and learned" -- on what do you base that
disagreement? As she is an expert in cognitive disabilities and
mental development, I naturally defer to expertise in these areas
unless evidence is presented which contradicts her statements.
Do you have any justification for disagreeing with her on this point?
If so, can you please share it rather than copping a dismissive attitude
("please!") which does little to help us create guidelines to assist
web designers in creating sites usable by people with disabilities?
Thanks.
--Kynn
At 5:17 PM -0800 12/14/00, William Loughborough wrote:
>At 06:38 PM 12/14/00 -0800, Anne Pemberton wrote:
>>The use of the arrows without a word has to be TAUGHT and LEARNED ...
>
>Unlike the use of the word without the arrows? Please! What if
>"next" means the next story instead of the next page.
>
>--
>Love.
> ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
--
Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com>
http://www.kynn.com/
Received on Thursday, 14 December 2000 21:34:09 UTC